Illuminative Evaluation: The Holistic Approach

Part of the Evaluation in Education and Human Services book series (EEHS, volume 8)


In order to answer the question whether there are alternatives to the Tylerian (objectives) model of evaluation, a group of 14 men met for a conference at Churchill College, Cambridge, in December 1972. The aim of the conference was to explore “nontraditional modes of curriculum evaluation” and to set out guidelines for future developments in this field. Participants, who included Robert Stake from the United States, and David Hamilton, Malcolm Parlett, and Barry MacDonald from the United Kingdom, were chosen because of their known reservations about established evaluation practices or because they had suggested or experimented with new approaches.


Incorrect Response Holistic Approach Educational Practice Observation Phase Instructional System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cronbach, L.J. 1963. Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers College Record, 64 (8), 672–683.Google Scholar
  2. Hamilton, D.F., and Delamont, S. 1974. Classroom research: A cautionary tale. Research in Education, 11 (May), 1–16.Google Scholar
  3. Hamilton, D. et al. (eds.). 1977. Beyond the numbers game. London: MacMillan Education.Google Scholar
  4. Hastings, J.T. 1966. Curriculum evaluation: The why of the outcomes. Journal of Educational Measurement, 3 (1), 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. House, E.R. 1972. The conscience of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 72 (3), 405–414.Google Scholar
  6. MacDonald, B. 1971. The evaluation of the Humanities Curriculum Project: A holistic approach. Theory into Practice, 10 (3), 163–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. MacDonald, B. 1973. Humanities curriculum project. In Evaluation in curriculum devel opment: Twelve case studies (Schools Council Research Studies). Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
  8. Parlett, M.R. 1972. Evaluating innovations in teaching. In H.J. Butcher and E. Rudd (eds.), Contemporary problems in research in higher education. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Parlett, M.R., and Hamilton, D. 1977. Evaluation in illumination: A new approach to the study of innovative programmes.” In D. Hamilton et al. (eds.), Beyond the numbers game. London: MacMillan Education.Google Scholar
  10. Scriven, M. 1967. The methodology of evaluation. In R.W. Tyler, R.M. Gagne, and M. Scriven, Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (American Educational Research Association Monograph on Curriculum Evaluation no. 1 ). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  11. Stake, R.E. 1974. Responsive evaluation. New Trends in Evaluation, 35 (January), 41–73 ( Institute of Education, University of Goteborg ).Google Scholar
  12. Stufflebeam, D.L., and Guba, E. 1968. Evaluation: The process of stimulating, aiding and abetting insightful action. Address to the Second National Symposium for Professors of Educational Research, 21 November, at Boulder, Colorado. Evaluation Center, College of Education, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  13. Stufflebeam, D.L., et al. (Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation). 1971. Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, I11.: Peacock.Google Scholar
  14. Suchman, E. A. 1967. Evaluative research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Tawney, David (ed). 1976. Curriculum evaluation today. London: MacMillan Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations